Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation/Archive 6

Picture
Very off-topic, but did anyone else notice the crossbow in the tower in the first picture?Prussian725 (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

UK article one sided?
Nowhere are the figures that showed illegally-owned gun crime has doubled since 1997, also someone seems to have created a deliberate connection between low gun ownership and low gun crime, in fact the complete opposite is true if you check the statistics. It's about time that the actual facts are reflected here rather than some ideological pov.Twobells (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That factoid is probably not included because it is simplistic and misleading. Firearms offences in England & Wales in since 1992 actually number:
 * 1992 - 13,341
 * 1993 - 14,067
 * 1994 - 13,167
 * 1995 - 13,434
 * 1996 - 13,876
 * 1997 - 12,410
 * 1997/98 - 12,805
 * 1998/99 - 13,874
 * 1999/00 - 16,946
 * 2000/01 - 17,697
 * 2001/02 - 22,400
 * 2002/03 - 24,070
 * 2003/04 - 24,094
 * 2004/05 - 22,894
 * 2005/06 - 21,527
 * 2006/07 - 18,481
 * 2007/08 - 17,343
 * 2008/09 - 14,250
 * The change between 1997 and 2002/04 is an increase of 94%, but then 1997 was clearly a low year compared to the previous five. More to the point, the last five years have each seen a fall, so that by 2008/09 the total stands at a level little different from pre-1996 figures. Equally significant is that of the 14,250 crimes in 2008/09, 6,042 (42%) actually involved air weapons, and 1,511 (11%) imitations, which only stood at 566 in 1999/98 when they were first specifically separated out, although they were included in earlier totals. Those are, of course, only the cases in which the "firearm" was positively identified as such, so is almost certainly a significant underestimate. The bottom line is that less than 6,697/47% of "firearms crime" actually involve "real" firearms. That's even before we get into the issue that 36% of the crimes are simply criminal damage. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

more countries?
Why are only a few countries in this article? I was looking for Gun politics in Israel, but found nothing. Why are there not more? Griffinofwales (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Because nobody has written them. The biggest "problem" is probably the lack of reliable English-language sources. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Statistics
Can we use statistics that differentiate between "violent crimes" and "gun-related crimes?" Do those exist? The last section treats all violent crimes as gun-related, or at least fails to clearly define or differentiate these terms, in its rather blatent argument that strict gun laws correlate to a rise in violent crime. I doubt some of those statistics, too. 74.13.137.125 (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, at least it's clear that those statistics come from a conservative think tank, but I didn't catch that this section was under "arguments," either. 74.13.137.125 (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved from right to bear arms article
Dennis Baker of Kings College London has outlined the moral justification for not criminalizing mere gun possession. Baker argues that there are far greater aggregate harms involved in other every day activities and therefore for the utilitarian harm justification for criminalizing mere possession is baseless. It is a remote harm form of criminalization and should be resisted. Dennis J. Baker, Collective Criminalization and the Constitutional Right to Endanger Others.

Does it fit in here AIR corn (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Arguments Section
I think we should separate the arguments section into pro-gun rights legislation and anti-gun rights legislation just for clarity purposes. It also seems fairly one-sided. I'm going to work on this now.

I agree. This article is strongly biased; it is almost entirely pro-gun. As an emergency physician who has actually seen a substantial number of gun deaths, none of them the result of anyone acting lawfully in their own defense, I think there is a great deal of data that supports the opposite viewpoint and that is being suppressed here. I think possibly having separate pro and anti-gun sections with different editors might be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danwoodard (talk • contribs) 04:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I should've gotten to work on this a long time ago. I'm the unsigned comment. I'm going to gather the necessary sources in the coming week and actually write this up. For example, a reason for anti-gun legislation would be major homicides (such as Tucson) and gun accidents. Destatiforze (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be an objective encyclopedia from a world perspective, not just the United States. Articles should be informational and non-partisan, again encyclopedias give objective facts not opinions. This series should be entitled "Gun Laws" and not "Gun Politics", politics implies a debate and gun laws are the law in each country. The articles should state the gun laws in each country and not make any comparisons to the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is only applicable in the US, the rest of the world have very different constitutions if any basic laws. The world may use US made guns, but their laws on firearms are very different from those in the 50 US states. Wikipedia is not a forum for partisan gun politics - for or against, there are plenty of partisan websites. People look to Wikipedia for objective facts with references, not opinions. Highdesert (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Gun ownership as a means of resisting tyranny
I just noticed an anon deleting text from the "Gun ownership as a means of resisting tyranny" section. He or she was right that the material is unsourced. However without that material the section seems very lopsided. If we're just listing the arguments in favor of gun ownership, then these section could be much shorter. But if we're trying to present a balanced view of an issue then we're not succeeding.  Will Beback   talk    21:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. There is no objective discussion in the article. It's just a pro-gun exposition. Is a "citizen militia" free to use arms against the US government simply because they consider it to be violating their constitutional rights? If the US military remains loyal to the government, could a citizen militia overpower it? Suppose it is democratically elected? If a foreign invader can overwhelm the entire US military, which hardly seems credible, is it likely that a few armed citizens can defeat them? The heavily armed citizens of Iraq did not prevent the despotism of Saddam or the US invasion. Remember that the last time a US militia opposed the national government was in Arkansas, in defense of segregation. Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard and that was the end of it. Danwoodard (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Gun politics in the Cayman Islands
This is not already covered in the article, but I do note a recent increase in the visibility and salience of the issue in the Cayman Islands. For example, this article from Caymay NetNews published last week (September 9, 2010): "'An interesting and strident thread throughout [a set of recent community meetings with the police] was the recognition by many people that heightened self-protection is a necessity in the face of increased incidents of violent crimes. Of course, this view has been driven by the recent incident in which a George Town homeowner, the holder of a licensed firearm, shot a burglar to death. It did not help that the intruder was someone who was supposed to be under official monitoring and supervision."

"'It seems that what many persons in the community have taken away from this incident is that in the face of certain failures from the police, they may as well take unto themselves their own personal security.'" Mvialt (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Title of Series
The title of this series is "Gun Politics", a topic that belongs in an opinion column. The original title of "Firearms Law" is what it should be titled. This is an encyclopedia so it should be an objective resource on firearms laws in various countries written neutrally and not pro or anti gun control. The two sides or the " gun politics", are irrelevant in these articles, the articles should state what the current law is in each country without any personal political agenda. References to the 2nd Amendment, NRA or other US laws or organizations has no place in articles on foreign gun laws. Articles written with a partisan agenda cast doubt on the credibility of the whole Wikipedia system. Highdesert (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

-- I completely agree. Reading a few articles, it is readily apparent that the vast majority of text serves to enumerate, define and explain gun LAWS, not "politics". The word "policy" and "laws" are related, since it is government policy that leads to laws. However, "politics" is about debate, with opposing sides and arguments for and against a particular issue. I'm not particularly concerned about the choice of "Gun" vs "Firearms" for the title, but I do think that "Politics" should be replaced with "Laws", e.g. "Firearms Laws" or "Gun Laws". It would be ok to have a section in each of the "Gun Laws" section that discusses the "politics" of those laws, e.g. the current state of relationship between pro-gun and anti-gun sides in that country, or the arguments pro-gun vs anti-gun. In short, "politics" and "laws" aren't the same thing. Nevertheless, it's probable that the vast majority of contributors to this project are pro-gun and anti-government, and who have politicized the issue of gun ownership, so they don't see the difference between "politics" and "laws". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.113.93.110 (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

-- I also agree that the title "Gun Politics" in inappropriate, as it is inherently POV. A better title would be "Firearm Laws". Dav-FL-IN-AZ-id (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I also agree the title should be changed to "Firearms Law". The question is, who is in charge of doing so? Danwoodard (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, "Firearms Law" would be a good clear and interesting subject for an article, international law and national laws could be included in this in a factual and verifiable way, definitions, restrictions on ownership & exports etc. However..... that would preclude much of the "Gun Politics" stuff currently in this article. "The politics of private gun ownership" and/or "the politics of international arms trade" could be a separate article(s). I would suggest a split, all the good solid lawerly stuff in "Firearms law" and all the pro-anti gun stuff in a separate article(s). Bigyaks (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC) EDIT: There's a proposal to merge with firearms licence and Gun law below, we should perhaps consider range scope of all these articles together.Bigyaks (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge
It looks like Firearms licence and Gun law cover the same topic - I think they should be merged here. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Bigyaks (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Gary Kleck study poorly executed
Gary Kleck conducted a survey which concluded that 2.5 million people in the US each year use guns to defend themselves. One percent of the US population is between 2 and 3 million. So if only one percent of the survey respondents had answered the survey dishonestly that would make the results of the survey inaccurate by millions. According to the NCVS (National Crime Victim Survey) guns are used defensively less than 100,000 times each year (source). The NCVS surveyed over 90,000 people. In contrast, Kleck only surveyed about 5,000 people. Thus it would be reasonable to conclude that the NCVS provides a more reliable estimate of the number of defensive gun uses in the US. An article published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern)87 (1997): 1430 revealed that using methods similiar to Kleck's, it could be concluded that nearly 20 million Americans have seen aircraft from another planet and that one million Americans have had contact with aliens.

"Since a small percentage of people may report virtually anything on a telephone survey, there are serious risks of overestimation in using such surveys to measure rare events. The problem becomes particularly severe when the issue has even a remote possibility of positive social desirability response bias. Consider the responses to a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1500 adults conducted in May 1994 by ABC News and the Washington Post. [34] One question asked: 'Have you yourself ever seen anything that you believe was a spacecraft from another planet?' [Page 1438] Ten percent of respondents answered in the affirmative. These 150 individuals were then asked, 'Have you personally ever been in contact with aliens from another planet or not?' and 6% answered 'Yes.'By extrapolating to the national population, we might conclude that almost 20 million Americans have seen spacecraft from another planet, and over a million have been in personal contact with aliens from other planets. That more than a million Americans had contact with aliens would be incredible news--but not the kind actively publicized by reputable scientists."(source)

In fact, if the same survey methodology that Gary Kleck used to measure defensive gun use is used to measure criminal gun use, many more people will report that they have been a victim of a gun crime according to a report by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center: "After controlling for other aspects of the surveys, these surveys indicate that criminal gun use is far more common that self-defense gun use. For example, in May 2000, a Washington Post national random-digit dial survey asked 'Not counting military service, have you ever been threatened with a gun or shot at?' Twenty-three percent (23%) said yes. In that same month (May 2000), a Gallup national random-digit dial survey asked 'Not including military combat, have you ever used a gun to defend yourself either by firing it or threatening to fire it?' Seven percent (7%) of respondents said yes."(source) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.136.145 (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sources please. Bigyaks (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The number of defensive gun uses versus the number of gun crimes is rather pointless in face of the NIJ Felon Survey showing that most armed felons obtain guns illegally and most respond they could obtain a gun regardless of any gun laws. Even if the ratio was 400,000 DGU versus 2,400,000 gun crimes, it would not validate gun control, since gun control would be more likely to prevent the DGUs. (NIJ Felon Furvey in James D. Wright and Peter Rossi, "Armed and Considered Dangerous", (Aldine 1986, 2nd ed 2008, ISBN-13: 978-0202362427)).


 * Everyone in the Kleck & Gertz 1994 NSDS survey was asked if they had used a gun defensively. Table 1 in the Kleck & Gertz 1995 article listed ten national surveys (some commissioned by pro-gun control groups) that gave a range of defensive gun uses of 764,000 to 3,600,000 per year, which places the K&G 95 NSDS figure of 2,400,000 in the mid-range. (Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun", Northwestern University School of Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995.)


 * "Most NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the DGU question, falsely or otherwise."--Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms.", NIJ Research in Brief, May 1997.


 * Apparently none of these DGU surveys measure the same thing due to the way the questions are asked.
 * NSDS and NSPOF: "Have you used a gun defensively?" gets huge numbers.
 * NCVS: "Have you been a victim of a crime? If yes, did you resist?" gets tiny numbers.
 * Lott: "Have you been in a threatening situation? If yes, how did you respond?" gets figures in between.
 * Other survey protocols get different results for different reasons.
 * "Do you own a gun? If yes, have you used it defensively?" filters out people. esp. women, who may not own a gun but live in a household with a gun owner.
 * "Do you own a handgun? If yes, have you used it defensively?" filters out DGU with rifles or shotguns.
 * All DGU surveys are open to question. But the NSDS, NSPOF and the ten national surveys listed in the Kleck & Gertz article on the NSDS survey list 764,000 to 4,700,000 per year, making the NCVS results the anomaly.


 * The NSDS and NSPOF question protocol may have a false positive bias, the NCVS question protocol may have a false negative bias. Under the NCVS protocol, one must identify as a crime victim before being asked if one has used a gun defensively, but in the NSPOF survey 6 of 19 defensive gun users did not consider themselves victims (apparently because they successfully defended themselves).


 * -- Naaman Brown (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Material on Japan from article
The following was added to the article in this edit. I've removed it from the article because it's not written in encyclopedic style. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

How to Own Guns in Japan

=
=============

In Japan there are many people who believe that Japanese shooters at Olympics are policemen or soldiers of Self-Defense Force. Some other people believe that Japanese citizen cannot own guns and people who enjoy shooting have to rent guns at shooting range, and some other people believes that legal gun owners must keep guns in lockers assigned for them at shooting ranges. So, I decided to write short introductory article about gun ownership in Japan.

In Japan, the kind of guns owned by civilian are as follows.

Air Rifle Hand Rifle Rifle Air Pistol (limited to 500 people for sports shooting only) Pistol (limited to 50 people for sport shooting only) Shot gun

The purpose to own guns is limited to two, i.e., hunting or sports shooting. It means we cannot own guns for defense purpose. The procedure to own the gun is as follows. Of course, people who use guns in their work (policemen, soldiers, etc.) don't have to follow the following step for guns used in the job. The terminology about 'air gun', 'air rifle' follow Japanese custom.

Participation in a lecture at nearby police station --

This is a requisite condition for anyone who tries to own gun. You go to the police station which is responsible for your address area, and apply for the lecture on gun regulation for beginners. In case of Tokyo, entire districts are divided into four blocks, and the actual place to have the lecture is one police station in the block. The lecture for beginner is held once in a month, I think.

The lecture starts at 9:00 in Saturday morning, and written examination follows after lunch. To 20 questions, you have to give at least 14 correct answers. When I had this lecture, two or three people did not pass among 32 or 33 attendance. This performance was high because usually 80 % of attendants pass the examination. After passing the examination, a certificate is given and its copy must be submitted whenever you do some application afterwards. The certificate is valid three years. It means, after the valid date of the certification, you have to attend a lecture for gun owners to get the new certificate. This time, no examination is  done.

Air rifle, hand rifle, and shot gun -

Once you get the certificate of the gun regulation lecture, there are two different paths depending on what you want to own. Note that you cannot apply for usual rifles nor pistols at this stage. To own them, you need further qualification.

A. Air rifle or hand rifle.

People who are not familiar with gun confuses air rifle from 'air soft gun' (or simply 'air gun') which uses plastic bullet and whose barrel does not have rifling. In fact, recently it was reported on TV that some members of AUM camped near by Mt. Fuji and did some military training using 'air rifle' of     AK 47. This report was not correct. What they used must be air soft gun shaped like AK 47 or model gun of AK 47.

Hand rifle is unique to Japan. It is actually air pistol, but long sleeve covers the barrel, and long stock is attached to the grip. In Japan, ownership of pistol (air or not) is restricted because of     their small size which enables covered transportation. Therefore, hand rifle was introduced for people who plan to own air hand gun eventually.

If you want to own air rifle or hand rifle, you can go to a gun shop with certificate to show to clerks, determine which gun to buy, ask clerks to write a paper which describe the detail of the gun, and name of     the shop. When you buy a gun not from a shop but from a current owner, the same paper is needed.

You must be at least 18 years old, or, you need to be over 14 years old and have recommendatory letter from an organization which governs all official sports organizations.

B. Shot gun.

Prior to go to gun shop, you have to take practical shooting course, followed by examination. To apply for it, you have to submit a lot of papers to the police, and it takes a few months until you get the approval because you and your family who live together are examined.

After the approval, you have the course at a shooting range and pass it (it is quite easy). Then, you go to a gun shop, determine the gun to buy, and ask clerks to write the paper.

You need to be at least 20 years old.

After applying for any gun, usually it takes about one month until you get permission. When you get notification from the police about permission, you go to the police station to receive license booklet, take it to the gun shop and receive the gun. Then within two weeks, you have to go to  the police station again with the gun to have it inspected and stumped on   the license.

SB - Small Bore rifle (0.22 caliber, rim-fire)

Since using of 0.22 caliber rifle (both rim-fire and center-fire) for hunting is prohibited in Japan (probably small animals suitable as targets  of 0.22 caliber live not far from where people live), the only permitted purpose to own it is for rifle shooting sports. The step to own Small Bore (rim-fire) rifle is as follows.

A. Become a member of a branch of National Rifle Association of     Japan, then become a member of N.R.A.J. itself. I my case, I became a member of Setagaya (one district in Tokyo) area at first, which means automatic membership of Tokyo branch of N.R.A.J,     then had to wait one year until I was allowed become a member of N.R.A.J      it self. But this term differs with branches. If you want to just enjoy air rifle, and have no interest in participating in national wide shooting meet, to stay just as Tokyo branch's member saves membership fee.

B. Participate in a few hour's lecture by N.R.A.J., and get certification.

C. Participate in at least two shooting meet per year before you apply for SB.

D. Get certification of skill of shooting. In case of shooting in Standing position, the score of criteria is     300 for S60, and 200 for S40. It is quite easy.

E. By satisfying above A,B,C,D, then you can apply for SB to N.R.A.J.     What you get if you pass the examination is recommendatory letter that you are suitable for shooter of N.R.A.J., and have potential to become a shooter for higher level competitions like Olympic.

F. Submit above letter as well as many other papers to the police station. Like the case of shot gun, it takes a new months until the police issues a permission to take shooting course in practice.

G. Take a practical shooting course at a shooting range, and get a     certification.

H. Apply for a gun to buy.

LB - Large Bore rifles (center-fire) --

There are two purposes you can use LB, one is sports shooting under control of N.R.A.J., and the other is hunting.

A. For rifle shooting as sports, the requisite to apply for it are as follows.

a. It is over one year since you have owned a SB.

b. You have already participated in 2 shooting meet per year with SB.

You apply for recommendatory letter to N.R.A.J., and follow the similar steps (without practice course in a shooting range) as SB. It looks only bolt action rifles can be allowed.

B. For hunting purpose, you must have continuous 10 years' history to     have own shot gun or SB. You simply apply for a gun to the police station.

Air pistol

The requisite condition to apply for air pistol is almost the same as SB except that certification of more skill in shooting is  required (in case of AR S60, score of over 510).

Since the number of owners of air pistol is limited up to 500, you usually wait one year or more (it means you wait someone  fails to update the license) until you get recommendatory letter.

After getting recommendatory letter from N.R.A.J, follow the same procedure as other kinds of guns to apply for the license.

Pistol

To apply for pistol, you need quite excellent skill of air pistol (in case of AP60, score of over 555) to apply for pistol.

This time, the number of people is limited to 50, but because of  so hard criteria, I heard two years ago that only 30 people owned it.

Permission for ammunition ---

Anybody can buy bullets for air rifle, hand rifle, and air pistol without restraint. For ammunition which contains powder, you have to get another paper from the police. On the permission paper, based on which kind of guns you have, the kind of ammunition gun shops can sell to the owner of guns are listed as well as total maximum amount. This paper is valid for one year, and, if my  memory is correct, the maximum number of ammunition the police allow to   a paper is 4,000. Because of the law, the maximum number of ammunition you can keep at home is limited to 800, and you must keep them in a specially designed locker which is different from gun locker.

Updating the license --

The license of gun is a booklet like passport. Your name, photograph, address, birth date, license booklet No. and its issue date, etc. are in the first page. Then pages for up to 12 guns follow (so, if you own more than 12 guns,  you have several license booklets). In the last page, there is a holder to insert the permission paper to buy ammunition.

The license for each gun is valid three years (more correctly, until  the third birthday after you get the license). It means, if you have three guns which you owned in three continuous years, you have to update the license of different gun every year. If you have three guns owned in the same year or owned in interval of multiple of three years, you can update them in the same year. Here, 'year' means not calendar year, but a interval between two birthdays of the owner, i.e., if you buy two guns, one a day before the birthday and the other one day after the birth day, their licenses are updated in the different years. To keep the license, following things must be cleared.

A. Requisite to update license.

There's no condition to update the license of air rifle, hand rifle, and shot gun. But if you have not used them in the past three years, license can not be updated.

To update the license of SB and LB, you have to show stump you got at rifle shooting meets. Though one of conditions that N.R.A.J.     issues recommendatory letter for SB and LB is that owner should participates at least two formal shooting meets per year for EACH gun, in realty, it is not checked by the police strictly.

To update license of air-pistol or pistol, it is strictly examined whether you participated in enough number of shooting meets, and score at them were enough to qualify the ownership.

B. Annual gun inspection.

Usually in spring, there's a day of annual gun inspection (the date     differs with police stations). You bring not only all guns but also a paper to report the number of times you used gun (for practice,     shooting meet, hunting) as well as the number of bullets you consumed.

C. Certification of a lecture which is valid at the time of update.

To update of the license, valid certificate of gun regulation lecture is     necessary. It means you have to attend the lecture every three years.

Others

A. There are many kinds of papers which you submit to the police at     various opportunities. The following is a list of them (not all of     them are needed every time).

o Application for ownership o Application for license update o Application to buy ammunition o Paper to return expired paper to buy ammunition o Signed paper that gun shop or ex-owner agrees to sell a gun to you, which contains detailed description of the gun o List of your family who live with you o Abstract of your family register o Past 10 years' record of your address, job, crime, and guns you ever own o Doctor's certification that you are not a user of drugs, and satisfies some other physical conditions. o Certification of gun lecture (for beginners, or for owners) o Certification of practice course at a shooting range

B. If you have some crime history, using knife or guns, you cannot apply for gun ownership for some amount of years. Also, if you live with dangerous people, like member of Yakuza, it may happen application is rejected.

C. In Japan, most policemen are transferred every several years to avoid their adhesion with residents. In case of a policeman who is     in charge of handling gun ownership, he is transferred every two years.

D. Because only one policeman works for gun ownership in each police station, I experienced several times that he was absent for criminal investigation. What I do when I have some business about gun ownership is to call him in the morning to check his convenient time, then go to the police station. So, it is often necessary to take annual leave of a day or half just to submit papers. I hope some reformation about this inconvenience.

E. The most popular accident caused by legal gun owner is to shoot the colleague mistakenly at hunting. In total, 10 to 20 accidents on legally owned guns happen every year. N.R.A.J is proud of its record of no accident at shooting meets.

F. The number of owners of shot gun and air rifle are, if my memory is     correct, around 35,000 respectively, whereas owners of rifles are 1/10 of them.

G. Guns must be kept in your house in a specially designed locker. One exception is pistol (not air pistol) which must be kept in a locker of the nearby police station.

You must keep key of the locker in a secret place (your family should not      know it), and even if policemen comes to your home for inspection, only owner should show guns. He can reject to show guns if policemen come without prior notification. It is to avoid an incident that guns are stolen by 'false police'.

H. To do hunting, you need another license for it. Issuing of hunting license is under control of Governor of each prefecture. The first course for beginners is followed by written examination follows like that for gun ownership. License is valid for 3 years.

I. When you apply for a gun, you specify its purpose (target shooting, or     hunting). You cannot use a gun for hunting if its purpose in the gun's license is "target shooting".

"Military gauges" in France: .50 AE?
I'm quite certain that the .50 AE cartridge has never been used by the French military, or by any other military for that matter. So why is it listed as being under "Category 1"? 24.214.230.66 (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Brayden Tacke a famous researcher also said  cartridge has never been used by the French military, or by any other military for that matter. So why is it listed as being under "Category 1"?

Duplication and article title
I propose moving this article to "Gun politics by country" and leaving the general topic to gun control, which seems to have a copy-and-paste chunk of this article. Gun law is also duplicative of this article and should be merged. -- Beland (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe gun politics are attempts to change gun law, making firearms law superordinal to gun politics. How about moving this page to Firearms law by country? If this article needs to be re-created down the road, that's fine by me. Marcus   Qwertyus   00:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How about, firearms policy? Gun Policies? --In Allah We Trust (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Bit of POV under the entry for New Zealand
"When firearms are discharged in public, the police often come under intense scrutiny from both media and public but are seldom dealt with, whereas an ordinary citizen excising their right to use 'reasonable force' (see Crimes Act 1961) to stop a home invasion are usually prosecuted." Anyone mind if I take this out? NBeddoe (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Bias in Gun safety and gun laws section?
Bias leans heavily towards talking points from a conservative think tank critical of gun control legislation. In addition, the section on gun safety could use more content.Schm01978 (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What balancing statistics would you consider adding? Also, the section may be poorly titled... seems to be more about gun restriction vs. crime rate than "gun safety."  Sailsbystars (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My biggest concern is that these statistics suggest a direct correlation *and* causation. (i.e. gun law was passed, crime went up, therefore gun laws cause crime to rise.) And this rather long list of conservative think tank talking points relies heavily on biased information, mostly that of Gary Kleck, a pro-gun criminologist. You are also correct in noting that they seem to be misplaced under the heading "Gun Safety." And gun laws seem to be covered under Gun Control.Schm01978 (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * CDC report on homocide, suicide and firearm related deaths among children for 26 countries in the high-income group and with populations of greater than or equal to 1 million.
 * Of the 161 million children aged less than 15 years during the 1 year for which data were provided, 57 million (35%) were in the United States and 104 million (65%) were in the other 25 countries.
 * Homicides accounted for 1995 deaths, including 1177 (59%) in boys and 818 (41%) in girls. Of the homicides, 1464 (73%) occurred among U.S. children. The homicide rate for children in the United States was five times higher than that for children in the other 25 countries combined (2.57 per 100,000 compared with 0.51)
 * Suicide accounted for the deaths of 599 children, including 431 (72%) in boys and 168 (28%) in girls. Of the suicides, 321 (54%) occurred among U.S. children. The suicide rate for children in the United States was two times higher than that in the other 25 countries combined (0.55 compared with 0.27)
 * A firearm was reported to have been involved in the deaths of 1107 children; 957 (86%) of those occurred in the United States. Of all firearm-related deaths, 55% were reported as homicides; 20%, as suicides; 22%, as unintentional; and 3%, as intention undetermined. The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 countries combined (1.66 compared with 0.14)
 * The firearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly 16 times higher than that in all of the other countries combined (0.94 compared with 0.06); the firearm-related suicide rate was nearly 11 times higher (0.32 compared with 0.03); and the unintentional firearm-related death rate was nine times higher (0.36 compared with 0.04). For all countries, males accounted for most of the firearm-related homicides (67%), firearm-related suicides (77%), and unintentional firearm-related deaths (89%). The nonfirearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly four times the rate in all of the other countries (1.63 compared with 0.45), and nonfirearm-related suicide rates were similar in the United States and in all of the other countries combined (0.23 compared with 0.24).
 * The rate for firearm-related deaths among children in the United States (1.66) was 2.7-fold greater than that in the country with the next highest rate (Finland, 0.62) Ssscienccce (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I am new at Wikki editing, and chose to work on "politics and guns" article because I saw some rhetorical issues that suggest bias. For example, the "Brazil" sub heading provides data to suggest a relationship between gun law and homicide, e.g. more law, more homicide. The same sort of data does not appear in other paragraphs because, apparently, the data would not support the obvious bias of the writer of the Brazil section. However, placing the Brazil data in context of all other data will provide a fuller and more accurate view. I probably should have brought this to this forum before I edited, but I have posted a change to the "Canada" sub heading that could be proto-type for other sub-headings. Basically I have extended the rhetorical device of making comparisons used in the Brazil Paragraph to the Canada paragraph. I would like to continue along this vein and shall unless there is a reasoned request not to do so.

As a side issue, is there any information to help us understand why the Brazil data is such an a anomaly. Leerobison (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

== RE: "Effects of Gun Control Legislation"

Political arguments don't belong in a reference article -- even (especially!) a reference article on politics. What more is there to discuss?

I do not question the facts presented in this section, only their purpose. These "effects" are hand-picked statistics from an adversarial position on a controversial issue. They do not belong in a reference article.

Please understand: I am making no political statement myself on gun control. I am saying that Wikipedia shouldn't be making any political statements on gun control either. I am surprised this section hasn't been removed already. Thwacht (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Murder rate and percent of households with firearms and handguns by country


It would be nice to have a country chart listing the percent of households with handguns in every nation. Even better, a country or region chart with one column listing the murder rate, one column listing the percent of households possessing firearms, another column listing the percent of households possessing handguns, and another column listing the percent of murders committed using handguns. See chart to the right and List of countries by intentional homicide rate.

People want reliable stats. Here are some references below.


 * Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993. By Lydia Saad. October 26, 2011. Gallup report. "Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period."


 * Table 18 on page 279 of Criminal Victimisation in International Perspective, by the International Crime Victims Survey. The percentages in table 18 are by household. Table 18 heading: "Ownership of firearms and handguns in countries and main cities (percentages). 1989-2005 ICVS and 2005 EU ICS." From the report intro: "A large portion of the latest data in this report comes from the European Survey on Crime and Safety (EU ICS), organised by a consortium lead by Gallup Europe, co-financed by the European Commission’s Directorate General for Research and Technology Development.


 * In 2011, 72% of the 8,583 murders committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns. There were 12,664 murders in 2011 according to the FBI. Source: Expanded Homicide Data Table 8 - Murder Victims by Weapon, 2007-2011. By the FBI (U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation). --Timeshifter (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Miguel, re: your edit of the section on Authoritarianism
Hi, Miguel. Have a look at this and tell me what you think. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=864. You have to do better than Kopel.StopYourBull (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So, let me get this right. You propose to call "the Houses, Barns, &c, which contain the above military Stores", as the "militia's military weapons depot"? No.  This is not right, per the very letter you quote. And, you further insist on calling what is the singular militum, and the plural militia, by an incorrect plural of "militias", too.  I suppose you also write for the singular of mouse and the plural as mice the  incorrect plural of "mices", too.  Or, if you insist on quoting "Looney Tunes", as "meeses."  No.  You are not being consistent with the very source that you bring forth, nor with Kopel, and the quality of the grammar of your proposed edit is not up to Wikipedia standards, either.  The text clearly needs to be improved.  Meanwhile, I am trying to write this as clearly as possible, per cited references, with no bias evident towards either the American or the British points of view, while following clear references that are clearly of sufficient weight.  (Kopel has even been quoted by the Supreme Court of the United States, but he apparently doesn't meet your British propaganda standards? No.  Not a valid concern, as Kopel is clearly adequate as a source.)  Let's try to work this out here, with as much effort as necessary to achieve a neutral wording. Do you agree that we should write this paragraph as neutral as possible?  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. The letter clearly states that it is only the military stores that are to be seized and destroyed, and that private property is not to be plundered. If the military supplies were stored in a barn, I would assume that the barn and its non-military contents were to be left untouched and the inhabitants of the property were to be safe. The letter also clearly describes how military provisions--mostly cannons, powder, and lead--were to be destroyed or rendered unfit for use. It is clear to me that the rebels would not have stored powder and iron out in the elements, so barns, etc., were the logical places to store military provisions. Complete histories of the period describe how at least half of the colonists were still loyal to King George, so it makes no sense that the colonists arms would be taken away in what was still a wilderness.
 * Your rant about my grammatical skills deserves little comment other than to point out that the Latin mĩles is soldier; its Latin plural would be militia; and the Latin plural of militia would be militiæ (I'm pretty sure, but you can check if you like). As militia was introduced into the English language, it may be a little pompous to use militiæ when describing many such groups, hence militias is the commonly used plural of militia (I assume you prefer Webster's and not Oxford: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia).
 * My thoughts on this are that you haven't done your homework. Go back to Kopel and see what source he provides for his assertion that Concord was gun control and not a military manoeuvre. If you can come up with the original source, or some other original source that validates Kopel's claim, then we can discuss how to word this passage in a neutral way. As it stands, just Kopel's unsupported opinion is not acceptable. The bulk of the evidence (more than 200 years of history teachings) says that it was a military incursion to destroy military supplies and not gun control that started the Battles of Concord and Lexington.
 * I am quite willing to let the passage stand as I left it until you come up with support that isn't just revisionist opinion. Thank you,StopYourBull (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Association of Gun control with authoritarianism
An RFC on this topic is at Talk:Gun_control. Please comment. &mdash; goethean 13:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC) While we are on the topic of gun control and authoritarianism, it is worth mentioning that in 1913, the Archbishop of Armenia sent a letter of complaint to the Sultan’s grand vizier of the government; among his complaints was that all weapons (my source did not specify if they were guns, etc.) were being confiscated from Armenians. Here is the link: http://choregfirin.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/confiscations-and-protests/ It was also mentioned in the Documentary Betrayal of the Innocents that weapons had to be registered with the police under Ottoman Rule. However, I would take the words of that documentary with a grain of salt. The reasons I do not edit the article to include the information above are: I do not feel qualified to do so, and I am not sure if it is totally pertinent to the topic at hand. One bit of advice that I have for everyone though: Correlation does not necessarily establish cause and effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheechnig (talk • contribs) 20:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Improve section "Armed forces' reserves and reservist training"
In regard to the passage "Some authors argue that Switzerland's militia tradition [snip]. However, this claim has been disputed by historians . . ."

Use of "historians" and "disputed" seems problematic due to the following:

1) The "dispute" is not verified/sourced. Both groups of authors are making claims which may in fact reside alongside each other in harmony:

The Nazis considered, but did not execute, an invasion of Switzerland. While they considered overall Swiss defense capacity to be low, Swiss policy on individual gun ownership made it enough of a harder target relative to other regions, that the Nazis left Switzerland alone and went after easier conquests. Switzerland's gun policies, thus, contributed to its preservation.

This is just one of many possible integrations of the two groups of authors points together in compatibility with each other. So, without verification/sourcing that one group of authors is disputing another, implying or stating there exists a "dispute" should be removed.

2) Source authors referred to as "historians": their status (and implied authority) as "historians" is not verified/sourced. I would suggest just calling them "authors" (see point 3 below)

3) The authors these "historians" are "disputing" are referred to as simply "some authors". This is POV, with the disparity in implied authority from using the two different descriptors.  Can't everyone who writes serious research about the past either all be called "historians" or all be called "authors"?  Suggest referring to both groups as either "historians" or "authors".  I recommend "author", as "historian" implies a level of authority and professional work that ought to be verified/sourced.

05:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Gun control RFC
There is an ongoing RFC that may be of interest to editors in this article. Talk:Gun_control Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia
This section needs extensive rework, it uses the word "like" and nothing is cited. As it stands I'd advise removing it until some properly cited information can be put in. This looks like the most authoritative source: http://www.aawsat.net/2007/04/article55262887/saudi-arabia-introduces-new-gun-laws

05:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Turkey
hey, can someone knowledgeable add a section about gun politic/laws in Turkey? for such a big and important country it should have a good section on it. thanks Moester101 (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, got any sources? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

 * I support a merge of this article and Gun control. They are about the same topic and include much of the same material.  "Gun control" is the more common expression, however "Gun policy", or "Governmental gun policy", might be a more neutral title. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They appear to be partially overlapping but not mathematically congruent topics - thus I suggest placing this at AfD and not try to deal with a very limited number of viewers here.  Collect (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a larger discussion of this proposal at Talk:Gun_control I am going to hat this discussion, so that the discussion is not split up. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Gun control is a small subset of gun politics.  If both were merged into gun politics, that would be fine.  It wouldn't make sense to merge both into gun control, though, as gun politics is a much larger topic, containing more sub-topics.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - two different subjects, although like Collect said, there is some overlap.  GregJackP   Boomer!   16:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

France
The information here is outdated and not useful. A new law came into effect in September 2013 which does in fact put limits on magazine capacity and changes many other aspects of French gun regulation. It is going to be a major job to translate and synthesise this - a job for which I do not volunteer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.57.49.125 (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Article renamed without any consultation - and with no effort whatsoever to make sense of the lede in light of the change.
I note that with no prior consultation, in the midst of a heated debate over Wikipedia coverage of firearms regulation, Gaijin42 has chosen to move this article from 'Gun Politics' to 'List of gun laws and policies by country'. While I can see the merits of dropping the obscure 'gun politics' name, I can't help feeling that wider input should have been sought before making such a fundamental move. Note also that the rename was all that Gaijin42 did - the lede still starts by defining (without a source) what 'gun politics' is, now for no obvious reason. Regardless of the merits of the move, this failure to amend the lede to comply with the title looks desperately sloppy work. As to what should be done about it, I'm unsure - and I'm certainly not going to make arbitrary decisions on my own. And neither am I going to clean up Gaijin42's mess. I assume that others are watching this page - though they may have missed the move, as I did, during all the brouhaha over the 'gun control' article/POV fork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the first paragraph was unnecessary and removed it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That at least avoids the incongruity - though there are still fundamental issues with the article. If it is to be merely a 'list of gun laws and policies by country', one might reasonably ask why it has section on 'Arguments', and one on 'Effects of gun control legislation'. We certainly cannot simply delete the sections - a great deal of work has gone into them, and they seem in part at least to cover issues not dealt with elsewhere. Looking at this further, I have to conclude that, contrary to Gaijin42's sole justification for the move - his edit summary - the new name does not 'accurately reflect article contents', in that this is clearly more than just a list, and the title is both misleading and restrictive. This suggests to me that a further move may be necessary, though I'm inclined to suggest that we wait until there is some sort of resolution regarding the contentious 'gun control' article - it may well be that we end up with a single article giving international coverage of firearms regulation (as policy on forking would seem to suggest we should, given the complete lack of sourced justification for the division), and naming issues can be decided at that point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * At first blush, it appears that the "Effects..." section could be dealt with easily. It's already divided into sections by country, so the respective sections could simply be moved up to the respective countries on the list.  The "Arguments" stuff is not so simply addressed, but perhaps the best result would be to simply move it into the Gun control article.  If no objection, I'll get started on the "Effects..."Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I think it is premature to be making fundamental changes, without consultation, in the midst of an ongoing debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This feels kind of like consultation. If neither you nor Collect has any substantive objection, I would like to redistribute the "Effects..." material.  No new content, no content removed, no fundamental change.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it still premature?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I will get started then.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The redistribution of info is completed. I'll see about moving the "Arguments" section later (the target article is currently frozen).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Likely "Overview of gun laws by nation" would be the most NPOV title available. IMO of course. Collect (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. It's a bit more elaborate than a list.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There being no objection, I moved the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Arguments
NOTE: The following material is removed from the article, because it does not belong in an overview by nation, but it's unclear where it should go, or how it should be edited.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

''SUGGESTION: This is the difference between Gun Politics (which all the below are) and Gun Laws By Nation (which the below don't pertain to because there's a walk between the motivations behind policies and the current state of the legislation in a country). MarkDennehy (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC) ''

{{cquote|Several studies have examined the correlations between rates of gun ownership and gun-related as well as overall homicide and suicide rates within various jurisdictions around the world.

Martin Killias, in a 1993 study covering 21 countries, found that there were substantial correlations between gun ownership and gun-related suicide and homicide rates. There was also a substantial though lesser correlation between gun ownership and total homicide rates.

A later 2001 Killias study, reported that while there was a strong correlation between gun-related homicide of women and gun-related assaults against women; this was not the case for similar crimes against men and that "Interestingly, no significant correlations with total suicide or homicide rates were found, leaving open the question of possible substitution effects." This study indicates correlation, but no causality. That is to say it could mean that the easier access to guns lead to more violence, or it could mean that larger amounts of violence lead to a higher level of gun ownership for self-defense, or any other independent cause.

A study by Rich et al. on suicide rates in Toronto and Ontario and psychiatric patients from San Diego reached the conclusion that increased gun restrictions, while reducing suicide-by-gun, resulted in no net decline in suicides, because of substitution of another method — namely leaping. Killias argues against the theory of complete substitution, citing a number of studies that have indicated, in his view "rather convincingly", that suicidal candidates far from always turn to another means of suicide if their preferred means is not at hand.

Self-defense
In an extensive series of studies of large, nationally representative samples of crime incidents, criminologist Gary Kleck found that crime victims who defend themselves with guns are less likely to be injured or lose property than victims who either did not resist, or resisted without guns. This was so, even though the victims using guns typically faced more dangerous circumstances than other victims. The findings applied to both robberies and assaults.

Other research on rape indicated that although victims rarely resisted with guns, those using other weapons were less likely to be raped, and no more likely to suffer other injuries besides rape itself, than victims who did not resist, or resisted without weapons. There is no evidence that victim use of a gun for self-protection provokes offenders into attacking the defending victim or results in the offender taking the gun away and using it against the victim.

Kleck has claimed, in his own national survey, and in other surveys with smaller sample sizes, that the numbers of defensive uses of guns by crime victims each year are substantially larger than the largest estimates of the number of crimes committed of offenders using guns. However, surveys that ask both about defensive gun use and criminal gun use find that more people report being victims of gun crimes than having used a gun in self-defense. In a largely approving review of Kleck's book Point Blank (1991) in the journal Political Psychology, Joseph F. Sheley argues that Kleck sidesteps the larger political problem of the role of gun culture in contributing to the spread and effect of violence in the United States.

The economist John Lott, in his book More Guns, Less Crime, states that laws which make it easier for law-abiding citizens to get a permit to carry a gun in public places, cause reductions in crime. Lott's results suggest that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms deters crime because potential criminals do not know who may or may not be carrying a firearm. Lott's data came from the FBI's crime statistics from all 3,054 US counties. Lott's conclusions have been challenged by other researchers. A University of Pennsylvania study, for example, found that people who carry guns are 4.5 times more likely to get shot than unarmed people.

The efficacy of gun control legislation at reducing the availability of guns has been challenged by, among others, the testimony of criminals that they do not obey gun control laws, and by the lack of evidence of any efficacy of such laws in reducing violent crime. The most thorough analysis of the impact of gun control laws, by Kleck, covered 18 major types of gun control and every major type of violent crime or violence (including suicide), and found that gun laws generally had no significant effect on violent crime rates or suicide rates. In his paper, Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do not,

A study by Arthur Kellermann found that keeping a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of suicide. It is well known that suicide is more common in rural areas of the United States where gun ownership is more common. The higher suicide rates in countries such as Japan may be explained by cultural factors irrelevant to the issue of the relationship between guns and suicide in the US. University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt argues that available data indicate that neither stricter gun control laws nor more liberal concealed carry laws have had any significant effect on the decline in crime in the 1990s.

While the debate remains hotly disputed, it is therefore not surprising that a comprehensive review of published studies of gun control, released in November 2004 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was unable to determine any reliable statistically significant effect resulting from such laws, although the authors suggest that further study may provide more conclusive information.

Forty U.S. states have passed "shall issue" concealed carry legislation of one form or another. In these states, law-abiding citizens (usually after giving evidence of completing a training course) may carry handguns on their person for self-protection. Some states, like Florida and Texas, only allow concealed carry, and only after obtaining a permit. Other states, like West Virginia, Virginia, Colorado and Pennsylvania, allow open carry without a permit as long as an individual satisfies the legal requirements to own a gun. However, to carry concealed in these states requires a permit.

Other states and some cities such as New York may issue permits. Only the District of Columbia have explicit legislation forbidding personal carry. Vermont, Wyoming, Arizona, and Alaska do not require permits to carry concealed weapons, although Alaska retains a shall-issue permit process for reciprocity purposes with other states. Similarly, Arizona retains a shall-issue permit process, both for reciprocity purposes and because permit holders are allowed to carry concealed handguns in a few places (such as bars and restaurants that serve alcohol) that non-permit holders are not.

Some people (who?) consider self-defense to be a fundamental and inalienable human right and believe that firearms are an important tool in the exercise of this right. They consider the prohibition of an effective means of self-defense to be unethical. For instance, in Thomas Jefferson’s "Commonplace Book," a quote from Cesare Beccaria reads, "laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Domestic violence
Gun control advocates argue that the strongest evidence linking availability of guns to injury and mortality rates comes in studies of domestic violence, most often referring to the series of studies by Arthur Kellermann. In response to public suggestions by some advocates of firearms for home defense, that homeowners were at high risk of injury from home invasions and would be wise to acquire a firearm for purposes of protection, Kellermann investigated the circumstances surrounding all in-home homicides in three cities of about half a million population each over five years. He found that the risk of a homicide was in fact slightly higher in homes where a handgun was present, rather than lower. From the details of the homicides he concluded that the risk of a crime of passion or other domestic dispute ending in a fatal injury was much higher when a gun was readily available (essentially all the increased risk being in homes where a handgun was kept loaded and unlocked), compared to a lower rate of fatality in domestic violence not involving a firearm.

This increase in mortality, he postulated, was large enough to overwhelm any protective effect the presence of a gun might have by deterring or defending against burglaries or home invasions, which occurred much less frequently. The increased risk averaged over all homes containing guns was similar in size to that correlated with an individual with a criminal record living in the home, but substantially less than that associated with demographic factors known to be risks for violence, such as renting a home versus ownership, or living alone versus with others.

Critics of Kellermann's work and its use by advocates of gun control point out that since it deliberately ignores crimes of violence occurring outside the home (Kellermann states at the outset that the characteristics of such homicides are much more complex and ambiguous, and would be virtually impossible to classify rigorously enough), it is more directly a study of domestic violence than of gun ownership. Kellermann does in fact include in the conclusion of his 1993 paper several paragraphs referring to the need for further study of domestic violence and its causes and prevention. Researchers John Lott, Gary Kleck and many others dispute Kellermann's work.

Kleck showed that no more than a handful of the homicides that Kellermann studied were committed with guns belonging to the victim or members of his or her household, and thus it was implausible that victim household gun ownership contributed to their homicide. Instead, the association that Kellermann found between gun ownership and victimization merely reflected the widely accepted notion that people who live in more dangerous circumstances are more likely to be murdered, but also were more likely to have acquired guns for self-protection prior to their death Kleck and others argue that guns being used to protect property, save lives, and deter crime without killing the criminal accounts for the large majority of defensive gun uses.

Civil rights
The right to keep and bear arms (often referred as the right to bear arms or to have arms) is the people's right to have their own arms for their defense as described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs and others. In countries with an English common law tradition, a long standing common law right to keep and bear arms has long been recognized, as pre-existing in common law, prior even to the existence of written national constitutions.

Civic duty
In several countries, such as Switzerland, firearm politics and gun control are partially linked with armed forces' reserves and reservist training. Switzerland practices universal conscription, which requires that all able-bodied male citizens keep fully automatic firearms at home in case of a call-up. Every male between the ages of 20 and 34 is considered a candidate for conscription into the military and, following a brief period of active duty, will commonly be enrolled in the militia until age or an inability to serve ends his service obligation.

During their enrollment in the armed forces, these men are required to keep their government-issued selective fire combat rifles and semi-automatic handguns in their homes. They are not allowed to keep ammunition for these firearms in their homes, however; ammunition is stored at government arsenals.

Up until September 2007, soldiers received 50 rounds of government-issued ammunition in a sealed box for storage at home. Swiss gun laws are considered to be restrictive. Owners are legally responsible for third party access and usage of their weapons. Licensure is similar to other Germanic countries. In a referendum in February 2011 voters rejected a citizens' initiative which would have obliged armed services members' to store their rifles and pistols on military compounds, rather than keep them at home. }} Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but there was no agreement prior to the article being renamed, and there certainly isn't evidence of any consensus to simply remove this content from article space. I should remind you that there is an active arbitration case regarding articles on firearms - and high-handed actions like this are unlikely to be seen in a positive light. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There certainly was indeed agreement between Collect and myself as to renaming, and then after six days without any objections I said (above): "There being no objection, I moved the article." There was nothing high-handed at all, on my part at least.  Your statement that "there was no agreement prior to the article being renamed" is plainly false.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Gaijin42's renaming of the article. And yes, removing huge chunks of sourced content from an article with no discussion whatsoever beforehand is high-handed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There was agreement to move the article to the present article title. The material in question clearly does not belong, as I stated above in December (20:29, 28 December 2013) without objection: "I'll see about moving the 'Arguments' section later."  I do appreciate the use of mild words like "high-handed" but in this instance the shoe does not fit.  As far as I can tell, you still are not offering any content-based reason why the material belongs here in this article, and therefore it seems kind of "high-handed" for you to reinsert it without asserting or explaining why it belongs.  In any event, I do not wish to squabble about it, and therefore will leave it as-is at least until the ArbCom case is complete.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There was no 'agreement' to anything. I had already made it clear that I considered Gaijin42's original unannounced move inappropriate, and that there should have been wider consultation. As for policy-based reasons, if you think my objection to the entirely undiscussed removal of a 2000 word section from an article wasn't policy-based, you have a different understanding of the word 'policy' than me. I shall of course be mentioning this further act of WP:OWNership of firearms-related articles in my evidence to the ArbCom case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There was plenty of agreement among three editors, albeit not including yourself, as to the name of this article. As I said, I intend to leave the material in — for now — as you requested, despite your lack of "content-based" reasoning (which is not the same thing as "policy-based" reasoning).  That hardly seems like article ownership on my part.  Whatever.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Three editors? There was you, and Collect - who was the third? And my 'content-based' reason is that this well-sourced content belongs in a Wikipedia article on firearms regulation - and prior to the arbitrary renaming of this article, it belonged here. An undiscussed and arbitrary renaming of an article can hardly be a justification for removing it from view entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Collect proposed the current name of this article. I explicitly agreed, and no one objected to Collect's proposal over the course of several days prior to the re-naming.  So naturally I inferred that Gaijin42 had no objection, which has been confirmed today: "With the exception of this content, the new article title is perfectly accurate."Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * With the exception of this content, the new article title is perfectly accurate. Under the old article title(the bulk of) this content is not on topic (effaciacy) but would be on topic for the gun control article. I agree with Andy that this content should not be removed from mainspace, but as the appropriate control article is protected we are stuck. i would fully support an edit protected request to drop this content into the studies/arguments section of the gun control article. There would be some overlap of content with the brief version of arguments already there, but that can be cleaned up. With that done, i think that fully resolves the POV fork argument. We have an overview of countries, and we have an overview of the topic itself. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Um, no. The POV-fork issue will be resolved when the fringe 'Nazi' material is removed from any article purporting to give an overview of firearms regulation issues, and the material is made to conform to WP:NPOV, rather than being written by pro-gun lobbyists regurgitating pseudohistorical propaganda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to putting this "Arguments" material in an article where it belongs. This "Arguments" material does not seem to say anything about Nazis, so I see no rationale for objecting on that ground.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Where it belongs depends on developing a decent consensus of the subjects which this and the Gun control article should cover. I think the proposal to change the name and subject of this article should have been posted on the Gun control talk page (proposed content transfer was proposed there) and probably should have waited until there had been some kind of resolution on the inclusion of Halbrook's thesis which was very obviously preoccupying most contributors. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who proposed the content transfer at the Gun control article (before I quit that page in despair), because a content transfer obviously involves changing two articles. But even for controversial page moves, all of the notifying is normally done at the article to be moved, because only one article is changed.  See Requested_moves.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure - but you know that that has implications for the subject matter of both pages and, to me at least, the actual subject matter of Gun control has remained terminally confused and contested. Clarity on this matter is pretty crucial for any kind of advancement and would significantly change the selection of the most appropriate sources. Certainly, I think, there should have been an attempt to obtain a wider consensus for the change to the article title of this page. The whole ARBCOM thing and shit-storm about the Nazi material also complicates things considerably but I think at this point, and as frustrating as it might be for some editors, it might be wiser to proceed with a bit more caution and to notify significant changes to this suite of articles as widely as possible. As it is, significant changes that have only limited consensus - that is limited involvement of other editors - are likely to be quite unstable and may invite edit-warring, etc. But basic points - article titles and subject matter, the relationship of key articles in this suite of articles to each other (particularly the designation of parent articles) - require definitive and widely supported settlement. Sorry that I haven't had the chance to comment on your recent changes to the Gun politics in the United States article although I see that has already raised some objections. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No significant objections (as yet) to the pertinent section of "Gun politics in the United States". Nor to the present title of this article, as far as I know.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah it was purely the lead. Objections to the change in this article, from AndyTheGrump and myself at least, were due more to the limited number of people involved in the decision - although I guess you could always point to the 231 page watchers who chose not to complain. Still, I would have preferred a more active attempt to involve more editors in the decision. It's a pity as I thought that Scolaire's proposal could have solved most of the issues deadlocking progression at the Gun control - and it's kind of obvious that a lot of editors really only want to write about the US situation rather than a properly global article. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Was Machiavelli writing about the US situation? People who see an armed citizenry as a safeguard against tyranny are spread all over the world, and throughout history.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well he was a convinced Republican, but I think he was extolling the advantages of a citizen army over the use of mercenaries in the context of those oft-warring Italian city-states. He wasn't much of a libertarian either. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My objection is not purely to the lead, though I am starting with the lead. I won't write a lot of detail here, but save it for that (Gun politics in the United States) talk page. I am also concerned about the renaming of this article and other articles on controversial subjects like gun laws and gun politics without more discussion. A lot of activity since January 1. Is there a timetable somewhere that I'm not aware of? I'm a member of the WP:GUNS. Maybe I need to join some other projects, or what? Lightbreather (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

czech etymology
Is the source backing the pistol etymology just describing the etymology, or is it directly backing the relationship between the etymology and the gun culture/preference for pistols instead of rifles? Could you provide a translation of the relevant section? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see my previous post at your talk.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw it, it does not address my concern that we do not know what the CZ source says, and if it actually backs the relationship described in the caption, or if that is WP:OR WP:SYNTH. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that regardless of sourcing, material relating to the etymology of the word 'pistol' does not belong in this particular article - it is off-topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have this particular source at my possession right now, I had it back in 2011 when adding the etymology information to Pistol article.
 * The caption only states that the fact that the CZ 75 is the most common firearm in the Czech Republic is typical of the word pistol coming from Czech. It does not say that it is the direct consequence.
 * In any case, taking into consideration that in most (if not all) other EU states the long rifles are the most common firearm, the fact that the in the country that gave origin to word pistol a pistol also happens to be the most common gun is beyond etymology issue and deserves mentioning, even if the direct relationship may not be there.
 * IMHO the fact that the Czech Republic allows concealed carry and use of pistol for self-defense plays bigger role than the píšťala's 14th century origin, but that is no reason not to include this information.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

the "symptomatically" is making that "direct consequence" link and is WP:OR if the source does not say something to that fact. This triva is a fine addition to the czech article imo, but not relevant to an overview of each countries laws. (further Id say the entire image is probably unneeded, but we aren't super image heavy, and the trivia of pistols vs rifles is interesting/notable). Gaijin42 (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hell may be freezing over, we agree on something regarding a firearms article! Gaijin42 (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, sorry if I didn't see that in word "symptomatically". I have deleted it. On another matter, I have nominated Gun politics in the Czech Republic for GA review, any comments to improve the article/ language clean-up will be appreciated. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page
There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to editors of this page. Lightbreather (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Links
>> Stray Bullets(Lihaas (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)).

"Arguments" section re: gun violence moved to GV talk page for discussion
On 21 FEB 2014 the Arguments section (about gun violence studies) of this article (Overview of gun laws by nation) was moved to the Gun violence talk page for discussion and incorporation into that article. The section that was moved presented gun violence study material only - and mentioned no laws.

If interested, please join that discussion about how to incorporate the material. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

America
There are no references for claims that crime rates went up after more stringent gun laws were put in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.174.139.130 (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Mexico
Does anyone feel that the quote from the article, and even the article itself about 90% of the guns not being traceable to the US was somewhat misleading? Perhaps the quote should be expanded to include more context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darktangent (talk • contribs) 00:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The headline doesn't match the data. The data: of 4000 guns that could be traced, 3480 came from the US. That's 87%, which within the limits of uncertainty is about 90%! Mr Pete (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Swiss gun law comments
I'm not sure it's helpful to edit out whole sections on the grounds that an editor doesn't agree with what the word "liberal" means. For example, swiss gun law is liberal by comparison to EU gun law, and very liberal indeed by comparison to member states laws (which add regulations to the baseline minimums set by EU law). Compared to Ireland for example, Switzerland's gun laws are enormously liberal. They might not be liberal by comparison to Texas or Arizona, but that doesn't mean the adjective is being improperly used.

Perhaps this latest edit should be rolled back MarkDennehy (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of what "liberal" means and rollback is only used for vandalism which my edit absolutely wasn't. The decision to call it restrictive came from a reliable source, in this case GunPolicy.org, calling their regulations restrictive. Gunpolicy is a well known and used site that documents different gun laws across the world just in case you were wondering. - SantiLak  (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am aware of GunPolicy.org - I'm also aware of the many mistakes in that site. Their entry on Ireland for example, is not merely incorrect, but heavily biased. For example, they cite the maximum penalty for illict firearms ownership at 14 years, but no part of the Firearms Act here cites that as a maximum penalty for illicit firearms ownership. Depending on the nature of that ownership and the type of firearm, the maximums are 5 years, 7 years, or life imprisonment. 14 doesn't appear anywhere in the law. They also attempt to give statistics on illegally held firearms - something I'm sure the Gardai here would find useful, since they explicitly state they have no such data, and given thirty years of domestic terrorism, no reputable source would ever attempt to give an estimate to such data without a degree of research that would be so extensive we would all be aware of it.


 * I'm also aware of the differences between Swiss firearms law, EU firearms law and Irish firearms law; and the word "liberal" is a justified one when used to describe Swiss firearms law in relation to the laws in the countries surrounding it. "Restrictive" is not.


 * Simply put, GunPolicy.org is an insufficently reliable source to justify an edit that utterly changes the tone and nature of the article like this, and using it as such changes this page from a source of information to a political statement in a highly contentious area of public policy. This edit should be reverted. MarkDennehy (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If GunPolicy.org is unreliable (which I think you have yet to demonstrate), the answer is to remove material sourced to it - not to replace it with entirely unsourced material. Find a source that contradicts GunPolicy.org and we will have something to discuss. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Andy. Why is unsourced material being reverted back into the article? --Neil N  talk to me 22:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * GunPolicy.org didn't help write the Irish firearms laws. I did. So excuse me if I just look at the Irish Firearms Act and what GunPolicy says Irish law is and see that the two don't match and say that makes them unreliable. As to your contention that we have to find a source that contradicts someone's opinion before we can discuss it, that's a recipe to turn this page into a US pro-gun vs anti-gun political morass in about ten minutes.


 * However, in the interests of avoiding conflict, I will point out that I've already cited some areas where GunPolicy.org is publishing incorrect information as correct. If you want more, there are more examples and we can compare GunPolicy.org to the Irish statutes which are available online, and the Gardai's statistics which have been requested in Written Questions to the Dail and presented publicly as a result. For example, gunpolicy.org says "small arms-related death, injury and crime remain relatively low" in Ireland - but we have one of the highest gun murder rates in the EU due to drug crime in Dublin. It says "The number of lawfully held private pistols and revolvers in Ireland shot up from a single legal handgun in July 2004, to 1,842 in July 2008" which is only true if you discount the years from 1925 to 1972, when an average of 1800 handguns were held legally in the state. Handguns are not a new introduction to Ireland, but a reintroduction after the Troubles ended. GunPolicy also states "It has been estimated that as many as 150,000 unregistered firearms might also be in private possession in Ireland", but to quote the Minster for Justice in 1991: "The very fact that firearms are held illegally precludes statistics being available of the number of such firearms. The only relevant statistics which are available relates [1130] to the number of firearms seized by the gardaí.". The numbers seized by the Gardai as reported to the Dail come to 6,963 between 2005 and 2012 - and don't forget that "firearm" in Ireland includes airguns, tazers, paintball markers, antiques, decommissioned or broken firearms, component pieces of firearms and crossbows, so even there the numbers aren't as high as they might seem. I think that's sufficient examples to highlight the problem; a full analysis of all the data on that site would take days, but with that many obvious flaws, editing the page on the basis of the site's data can't be justified. MarkDennehy (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you wish to dispute the validity of gunpolicy.org's coverage of Swiss firearms regulation, feel free to do so - by pointing out where they are wrong regarding Swiss law, not the laws of the Irish Republic. Meanwhile, please do not remove sourced content and replace it with unsourced material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Sourced" and "Accurate" are not equivalent terms. And calling Swiss firearms law restrictive is not accurate. I also question your uncritical acceptance of GunPolicy.org's data on other topics when it is so flawed in the cases I cited. Surely the onus is on those making the change to prove their data before making the change, instead of making the change and then demanding proof to their own standards before a rollback is performed? Or is this entire edit a politically motivated change? MarkDennehy (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Nobody is required to get consensus to remove unsourced material and replace it with sourced material. I suggest you either provide new sources on Switzerland, or let the matter drop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * And just like that, this article takes an enormous credibility hit, because if you can write a html page saying "X is true" and cite it, that's now more trusted than the combined experience of millions of people who observe on a daily basis that X is not true, despite the lack of actual evidence in the citation. What happened to critical analysis of sources? MarkDennehy (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Still no sources... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources are required. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

First of all, gunpolicy.org is grossly inaccurate. Secondly, its point of departure is US constitutional right to be armed unhindered by any formalities. From that point of view, basically EVERYTHING else is restrictive. Does Switzerand have one of the easiest legal access to firearms in Europe, probably also worldwide? Yes. Can you get a firearm without any license? No. Does it allow for relatively easy access to full-auto firearms, which are prohibited even in the US? Yes. Does it provide easy possibility of concealed carry for self-defense? Definitely not. So is it restrictive or not? US constitutionalist and gunpolicy.org will tell it is, a bunch of other sources will tell it ain't. Get the sources, provide both views. Otherwise this debate has no sense. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

We are once again inserting entire paragraphs into wikipedia based solely on gunpolicy.org statements which are not supported by fact. Stating that swiss gun law is restrictive is not a supportable statement, both because it is a relative judgement; and because by comparison to the majority of countries, it is far more permissive about firearms ownership. If the point of these edits is to go down the road of politicising this page, we ought to be flagging this page. Until that point, posting that swiss gun laws are restrictive, while everyone else knows the opposite to be true with examples like the Knabenschiessen ( http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/swiss_teen_rifle_festival.html ) or the recent vote on restricting the storage of ammunition which saw 57% reject further firearms legislation.

If this page is to be kept as a reliable source of information and not a political rant, we need to stop posting material from sites that are explicitly run for _policy_ reasons and we need to stop writing in absolute evaluations of national legislation (which makes no sense anyway as comparing the legislation from different countries is something that even full-time academics studying these areas take years to do on even a small scale. MarkDennehy (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

New 'comparison' section
A contributor has just started creating a 'comparison' section, consisting of a table listing each county, with columns for yes/no answers for 'private citizens', 'personal protection', 'concealed carry' etc. As the section cites no sources, I have to assume that the data is being compiled based on original research, and accordingly is not compliant with Wikipedia policy. Firearms legislation is a very complex topic, and not one that can be reduced to simplistic yes/no answers without omitting necessary details, and without making subjective judgements. Accordingly, I suggest that the section be removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I'll provide the sources tomorrow (I'm going to sleep now).
 * Actually, every single law, even a very complex one, could be reduced to a bunch of simple yes/no answers.
 * For example, there is a definitve and simple answer to the question "Is personal protection a ligitimate reason for the gun permit in Australia"? The answer is "no" - without omitting any details. --Blacknight87 (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you take a look at Gun laws in the United States by state. Even a single country requires a breakdown by state to adequately cover the topic - and still has extensive notes for each entry. Reducing such complexities to simple yes/no answers is potentially misleading, and an unnecessary duplication of material better covered in prose in the appropriate section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There are only a few countries in the world which have such differences in law between states as in the US. The US is probably the most diverse country in this sense. Also, a bad example.
 * Comparison tables are acceptable in Wikipedia - it's a good method of visually representing information in a compact form. There are tens of thousands of similar tables in Wikipedia.
 * By the way, it's strange to have an article named "Overview of gun laws by nation" without a comparison of laws between countries. The comparison is probably the #1 reason why most of the readers are going to this page.
 * For example, I really don't care if concealed carry is allowed in Bosnia. But it's interesting to see which and how many countries allow it. --Blacknight87 (talk) 07:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not in any way strange. The word "overview" does not mean there will be a comparison or a table. It means "Overview". MarkDennehy (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

As currently formulated, this is pretty trivial and will wind up being content-free and simultaenously contentious. For example - "Automatic Weapons". There are a few issues there, to start with, the entire EU effectively doesn't allow the private ownership of automatic firearms (they're classed as Category A firearms and can only be owned with special permission from Ministerial level in that country). Secondly, the word "weapon" implies a specific purpose for the firearm (and in some countries, implies what that firearm has already been used for), namely killing people. Terminology like that is just going to unnecessarily antagonise people and bring something similar to the entrenched screaming match that passes for debate on gun control in the US to a page that should just be an informational page listing current legislation (not politics).

It's not that the idea is a bad one by default - just that the current headings aren't much use. MarkDennehy (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

What the heck is the "Maximum Penalty" column supposed to refer to? Maximum penalty for "paperwork" offences or "abuse" offences? Is it asking how long you go to jail for if you don't have a licence or how long if you shoot someone? Because the latter is going to be affected by other areas of law (homicide being a serious crime) but the former could be any one of a dozen kinds of violation. It feels like the title is not conveying enough information for anything in the column to be of any use; it's data compression taken to the point where all meaning is lost. MarkDennehy (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, MarkDennehy. It's "maximum penalty for illicit firearm possession". The full description is shown if one holds the cursor on the title. I'll made an additional elucidation.
 * Please feel free to make any suggestions on how we can improve the table --Blacknight87 (talk) 07:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In Ireland, that's not one offence, but any one of three, each with different standards of proof required in court and with three seperate maxima, two of which differ depending on how the accused pleads in court... 87.198.124.137 (talk) 09:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the maximum penalty among the three? --Blacknight87 (talk) 10:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an utterly meaningless question - there's so much contextual difference between the different cases that giving one answer isn't simplification, it's just information loss. MarkDennehy (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I for one very much welcome the table and the work that Blacknight87 has put into it. On the other hand, however I agree with AndyTheGrump that some jurisdictions have varying laws and that should be reflected in the table. My main problem though is that http://www.gunpolicy.org/, which is the main source so far, is very much outdated/misleading. I got the Gun politics in the Czech Republic to Good Article Level and I can tell you that most of the information on gunpolicy.org regarding the Czech Republic is false. Right now the table has quite a few EU states indicated as open carry states, which is utter nonsense.

I'd suggest that where there is a Gun Politics Page linked in the table and the page is well sourced, the Wiki page should be used as source of information (not as reference, obviously). Also, I'd suggest adding information whether a permit is shall issue or no issue - most countries allow gun ownership on paper, but in reality only few politicians and bankers are allowed to own and carry a firearm.

I shall help as much as I can, unfortunately I don't have the time I used to to do any major work. I propose something like this as a basis:

Also, I think that the max penalty is very helpful. As regards the coloring: I'd propose less than 3 = green (means alternative punishment in most jurisdictions, e.g. public work), 3-5 = yellow, 5-10 = red, 10+ = dark red.

Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I went on and cleaned some clear mistakes in the table. For example - Canada has very restricted may issue on concealed carry, which was debated at length after the recent shooting at parliament. China was indicated as "yes" for carry while it was indicated as restricted yes for ownership - clearly, if one can only get a gun for hunting (and very hardly so), one may not carry it. A distinction must be made between carrying and transportation - carrying means having a gun that is loaded and ready for immediate use while in public. Transportation means being able to take a gun to hunting/shooting range. Most countries allow transportation subject to gun being unloaded and/or locked in a container and/or disassembled. Only few allow carrying. To be continued, I guess. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I reworked most of the table. Reliance on the Gun Policy website doesn't work. First of all, they view it from the US perspective, which leads to conclusion that all other ways that are non-US are restrictive. Secondly, when comparing to any other sources, it simply doesn't add up. I don't have time to look deeper into the following states: East Timor, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Jamaica, Kenya, North Korea, Pakistan. I would be glad if someone could do them - including the more final differences such as may/shall issue, etc., and add more reliable sources. Regards, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Australia
That last edit reversion says " The last paragraph seems highly bias, not to mention the opening statement was simply not true "It is worth noting that overall homicide rates do not show any reduction"

Thing is, while that seems highly non-intuitive, it's nonetheless true. The head of the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research said "I would need to see more convincing evidence than there is to be able to say that gun laws have had any effect" in 2005 (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-laws-fall-short-in-war-on-crime/2005/10/28/1130400366681.html); and research in 2006 (http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/3/455.abstract), 2008 (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854), 2009 (http://www.biomedexperts.com/Abstract.bme/18839044/Controlling_firearms_use_in_Australia_has_the_1996_gun_law_reform_produced_the_decrease_in_rates_of_suicide_with_this_method), and a consensus paper in 2010 (http://www.sph.uq.edu.au/docs/BODCE/ACE-P/ACE-Prevention_final_report.pdf) showed that the introduced gun ban itself did not reduce firearms violence, did not prevent suicide by firearm, did not prevent mass shootings and was ineffectual in preventing crime.

The good news is that the rates of firearms violence and suicide did decrease; it's just that that had been underway for years before the ban and the rate of decline was not altered by the ban. The suicide rate declined some years after the ban after social programmes tackling suicide itself were instigated.

So nonintuitive, but still correct. The reversion should be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkDennehy (talk • contribs) 15:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added additional journal citations for the work that demonstrates the 1996 gun laws had no effect on homicide rates... but DID have an effect on suicide rates. Mr Pete (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The suicide finding is somewhat controversial though: here is a study saying that it didn't have an impact: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18839044 MarkDennehy (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Information on North Korea
Article claims that firearms are completely banned from civilians in North Korea. All sources on internet making this claim stem from one article from Yonhap News. The article simply states that North Korea passed such an act. There are no sources or other forms of information provided. There is also no apparent evidence online or elsewhere in the world that otherwise suggests that such a law in North Korea actually exists.

I thus believe that there is insufficient data to consider the article from Yonhap as a reliable source, and as it is the only original source, the section regarding North Korea's gun control laws should be removed. Unrequestedsillything (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of Liberland
There's no reason not to include Liberland. It is a new nation with a constitution being drafted and in the process of recognition. It has received support from political parties in numerous countries and has established several embassies too. The main reason to include it is to show the contrast in gun laws and would be a valuable reference to compare to other nations and their gun laws. Please accept my edit and stop reverting it. Thanks. Terrorist96 (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Liberland is an unrecognised self-declared 'micronation' with no legal status whatsoever. Accordingly, there are no 'gun laws' to include in this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The legal status is being worked out in the courts currently. And yes, there are no gun laws because the constitution forbids them. See the most recent draft here: https://github.com/liberland/constitution/blob/master/Liberland-constitution.md
 * It is still a good item to add in order to contrast the other nations in the chart. Terrorist96 (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 'Liberland' has no legal status, and until it does, it doesn't belong in this article. This article is not a platform for the promotion of fictitious 'nations' regardless of what their equally fictitious 'constitution' has to say. We do not cite primary sources from fictitious entities as evidence of anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Comparison table on top
Should we maybe put the comparison table on the top of the page? Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 one external links on Overview of gun laws by nation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150218142140/http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms to http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101123105509/http://iansa.org/regions/scasia/scasia.htm to http://www.iansa.org/regions/scasia/scasia.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150722174744/http://disarmament.un.org/cab/salw-nationalreports.html to http://disarmament.un.org/cab/salw-nationalreports.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080720042213/http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2007_04/kopel-israel.html to http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2007_04/kopel-israel.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140419142024/http://www.zastava-arms.rs/cms/index.php?id=176 to http://www.zastava-arms.rs/cms/index.php?id=176
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120429174856/http://www.firearmsafetyseminar.org.nz/_documents/Greenwood_Paper.pdf to http://www.firearmsafetyseminar.org.nz/_documents/Greenwood_Paper.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Totschläger and Stahlruten
I dont speak German, but from waht I remember and checking with wiktionary Totschläger would mean "death stick" and Stahlruten would just be "steel rod". (The words given are the plural forms.)  Should I put it in ? — Soap — 04:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Info about Poland in the comparison chart is out of date
Specifically, the part about concealed carry and carrying without a permit. Since October 1st 2014 (http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/Download;jsessionid=1F8571BF699DE5B890BF90FC7232C293?id=WDU20140001224&type=2) people with a sports permit (among others, with the exception of collector's, commemorative and hunting permits which are regulated elsewhere) may carry their firearms loaded if they're concealed on their bodies (within means). In public transit and during mass events they still have to be unloaded. Once one has the sports permit, no additional steps are necessary to be able legally carry loaded firearms. Before 2014/10/01 only people with a self-defense permit were allowed to carry loaded firearms (and police, security guards with a special permit, etc.) The sports permit is the second most popular permit after hunter's permit.

I'm also not sure if the "Automatic firearms" box shouldn't be in yellow. While such firearms are not easily obtainable, they are not impossible to acquire legally for civilians. One way to do it is to get the collector's permit. Ustawa o broni i amunicji from 2011 states that collector's can acquire machine pistols/SMGs with calibers 6 to 12mm, and automatic rifles/machine guns with calibers 5.45 to 7.62mm. But because of the way the law is amibiguously worded, the police are trying to make problems for people trying to buy such firearms. These days the only way to buy those firearms is to appeal to different courts - up to the Supreme Administrative Court. It can take over two years, but so far the courts side on the peoples' side and those people are able to buy guns they originally wanted but were prevented from.

Another way is got get a permit gun dealers, gun stores and gun manufacturers must get - it's going to be more expensive, but should take less time.

On the other hand I think the "personal protection" box should be in red. In theory this permit is may issue, but in practice it is extremely difficult to get for non-VIPs, even if the applicant's life is in danger. (Fortunately nothing prevents people from acquiring and carrying firearms with the sports permit, and defending themselves with them should the need arise.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.4.214.241 (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, these are good points. Do you have some reliable sources regarding the changes to Polish gun laws? Thank you, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Ammunition aquisition of Swiss militia guns
First of all, DO read first of all the respective laws as explained in. The facts are: -- ZH8000 (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The militia weapon can be kept at home.
 * Since 2007 no military issued ammunition are kept at home any more.
 * As long as you are in service the militia gun is not your private gun.
 * You can only aquire ammunition for guns you privately own (and have a licence for).
 * As long as your militia gun is not your private one, you cannot buy ammunition privately for it. (except at shooting ranges, where you have to use them!)
 * So you cannot buy compatible ammuntion for your militia gun as long you do not possess another weapon with the same calibre.
 * After your obligatory service you can aquire your militia gun (needs a gun aquisition license) and convert it to a private gun. However, they are rebuilt to a semi-automatic gun if necessary.
 * After your obligatory service (about after 32) you can privately aquire ammunition for your previous militia gun, but only if you keep it and you applied for a weapon aquisition license, as necessary for almost all guns, especially of this kind!


 * This is again addressed to User:MarkDennehy. Since he refuses to discuss the issue on the talk page here, let me make some aspects very clear:
 * I will always revert uncited claims, especially if they are not being discussed on the talk page, as invited.
 * Reverting or deleting other user's comments on a talk page is considered vandalims WP:TPO. I tagged you respectively on your talk page.
 * Discussion on the change summary is not considered good behavior, especially when asked to resolve an issue on the talk page. WP:EDS
 * You claim statements which you do not support by any citations, but at the same time you request it from others! That's quite controversial.
 * All the facts I listed above are supported by the citations given on the referred Article Gun politics in Switzerland. Again, READ the article, there you find them cited. But first of all, you must read it, otherwise you cannot seriously argue about them.
 * This is my last invitation to you to discuss your issues, and I expect them to be supported by respective citations.
 * thx. -- 23:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all, passive-aggressive edits aimed at an individual are not acceptable.
 * Secondly, article 16 of the firearms act in switzerland specifically states you don't need an acquisition licence to obtain ammunition on ranges for shooting; an acquisition licence is only required to purchase a firearm from a dealer, it doesn't apply to private sales; and the firearms act doesn't cover the militia firearms anyway, that's an entirely different set of regulations. And you're citing a wikipedia article instead of a primary source. MarkDennehy (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, for the third time:
 * As I already wrote in my first post here: "... you cannot buy ammunition privately for it. (except at shooting ranges, where you have to use them!). Nevertheless, this ammunition is anyhow considered army-issued ammunition, and it cannot be taken home.
 * "it doesn't apply to private sales": Yes it does: Art 24 WV.
 * "... and the firearms act doesn't cover the militia firearms anyway, that's an entirely different set of regulations": Well, you contradict yourself. Either you refer to the WG, then see Art 24. WV. or then WG does not apply at all (which is not true for ammunition, especially) then it is anyhow cristal clear, since you cannot buy ammunition for a militia issued gun. Period.
 * So either way, it is not legal. -- ZH8000 (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Your point was that these firearms should not be counted in the "firearms per 100 people" statistic because people couldn't buy ammunition for them because they had no acquisition licence for them and that's a requirement under article 15 of the swiss firearms act. Except that article 16 says it's not necessary to have such a licence on shooting ranges (and article 24 is about the sale of ammunition, not the sale of firearms). Militia firearms are included in the 2007 Small Arms Survey after those laws were considered by the authors.
 * More; that entire wikipedia article is based on the 2007 survey; but you edited it based not on a citation but your interpretation of swiss firearms law. There are other edits in there that cite updated data or other primary data which represent changes in statistics since 2007; but this was not in that vein. And when that edit was reverted you engaged in an edit war and then personalised it. MarkDennehy (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Australia 2
Please stop your edit war and simply look below about Australia's gun laws. Of course, they aren't by far as liberal as most U.S. gun laws, but they aren't very strict. And I don't know what should be the problem with not-mentioning one country. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"liberal" and "strict" really need to get banned from this page. Every time someone uses them, it causes this nonsense. And I have yet to hear of anyone accepting any cited source to back up such relative judgements, or of anyone who has enough free time to present a fully cited case. For example: Take the claim that Irish firearms legislation is stricter than (say) Arizona firearms legislation, a claim that is prima facia obviously true; in order to provide a properly cited argument you'd have to invest dozens of hours of work citing the relevant current laws regarding firearms ownership in both places (this is non-trivial; Irish firearms law is particularly arcane and hard to read and distributed amongst several dozen acts, secondary legislation, regulations and so forth and Arizona legislation has to be read in conjunction with federal legislation); examine the type of firearms that can be licenced in both places and what standards must be met by licence applicants; or even if that licencing model is comparable between the two (in this case it's not); and even at that you would still find exceptions to general rules where it is easier to obtain something firearms related in Ireland than in Arizona (sound moderators and rifles over .50 calibre for example) and then you have to somehow make a judgement about whether or not the exceptions outweigh the generalities (or in other cases, you have to judge which are the exceptions and which are the generalities in the first place). Since expert opinion seems not citable here as proof (or at least isn't felt acceptable whenever this topic pops up), unless you can spare 20-50 hours to put together a citation-supported argument and everyone who disagrees can also find that time to provide a counterargument, maybe we should just stop trying to make relative judgements across countries with different firearms laws, different firearms ownership cultures, different approaches and social norms surrounding policing and legislation in this area, and just present each case to the reader and let them judge for themselves. Or, you know, edit war till we're seventy and arthritis stops us typing... MarkDennehy (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact, I agree with you, Mark, but I also have two sources for the laws in Australia: the first one are the already given sources in this article, stating the laws rather liberal, but that is like you say my own judgement. But my second source is Masters of the World where Austrlia's gun laws are marked as more liberal as e.g. in most Europe's countries. But I agree with you, such terms can be banned from the article. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is, that's a judgement between "most of Europe" (and there's a very wide variation there by the way; Ireland's legislation, for example, is one of the strictest in the world, while places like Croatia would be more relaxed than some US states) and Australia; but it doesn't tell you if Australia is *actually* liberal or not. If you measure it relative to, say, Japan, then yes, it's liberal. If you measure it relative to Texas, it definitely isn't. As a result of that, people can go round and round all year long fighting over whether or not to call their gun legislation liberal *even without* the pro/anti-gun ideological side of things being involved. MarkDennehy (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. Therefore terms like "strict/severe" and "liberal/free" can be removed from the article or better explained. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * They are actually strict though, they have similarly restrictive laws to country's like Germany and more restrictive one's than Canada, so yes they are restrictive, I don't understand where you're getting this idea that they aren't. Reputable sources such as Gun Policy.org list them as restrictive, a video game and your own judgement don't override RS. - SantiLak  (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As we've just been saying, that is a content-free statement. "They actually are strict" - compared to what? Compared to Japan, Australia is very lax on firearms. And compared to Ireland. Or a few others. We don't have any accepted "global ranking" of strictness here and even if we did, you'd still be making an at-best-murky judgement call, which is more editorial than report. And "similarly restrictive laws to countrys like Germany"? Where's your citations? What laws do they have which are similar (be specific - what law, what's the similarity, for every one of their firearms laws, and don't forget to distinguish between national and regional variations). Also, gunpolicy.org is far from well-accepted because of factual errors in their data and ideological editorials in their articles. And "your own judgement" was the entire basis for your comment.... MarkDennehy (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting that my own judgement should be citation enough for removal although that other user did exactly that, and also gunpolicy.org has still been held as RS in these cases, I know from past editing disputes that you have some sort of vendetta against it's use as a source but it still is RS, and according to them Australia's gun laws are restrictive, that's my citation for it. - SantiLak  (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Is objecting to factually incorrect data now a vendetta? Take, for an example, the very first piece of information they have on Ireland - the number of firearms in civilian hands. They cite it as 300,000, made up of 150,000 legally held and 150,000 illegally held ( http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/ireland ). There are several problems with this. For a start, it is only one of several numbers they cite for the total number of civilian firearm in Ireland, ranging from 230,000 to 393,000 because their own policy says that they can add estimates from completely different sources together; something the authors of those sources would never have taken into account and which can completely invalidate their numbers as it has here - to get 393,000, they took the current number of licenced firearms from the Gardai (which is in itself a dubious estimate because the word 'firearm' in Ireland has a specific legal definition that's wildly different from anywhere else making comparison difficult at best) and then they added the 2007 Small Arms Survey estimate of illictly held firearms to it, a number which two Irish Ministers for Justice have publicly stated is a number that has no basis in fact. And in fact the Survey gives no reason for its choice, it just appears in a table with no supporting reasoning or evidence. This is not how you get accurate data; this is an example of the web version of paper never refusing ink. You have unexamined sources producing estimates with no basis being cited alongside the police force who physically count the firearms as being equally reliable, and they're not even examining what they are counting. That is not how you get a reliable source, it's the exact opposite. MarkDennehy (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't do that. Because it's my own judgement and the others too of others, I removed the phrases mentioning "strict" and "liberal" gun laws. Because our judgements and those of gunpolicy.org aren't relevant citations. So please stop lying! --212.186.0.108 (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

United Kingdom section statement on history of treatment for depression.
Under the section for the United Kingdom, it states this:- "no history of treatment for depression or any other kind of mental or nervous disorder"

This is of-course incorrect as I was issued with a FAC and SGC even though I have previously had treatment for depression.

I'm not sure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.226.10 (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Add more countries.
Countries such as Greece, Ecuador, the Dominican Republic, etc have NOT been added to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E790:5800:11C:52E5:2265:8F39 (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, it seems you are passionate that those countries and more should be added, feel free to edit the article constructively and with citations and add those countries. We always appreciate the positive expansion of an article. - SantiLak  (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)